Sunday, November 6, 2016

Author NotesThe name of the hexagram means universal, general, and in a figurative sense to influence, to stimulate. The upper trigram is Tui, the Joyous; the lower is Kên, Keeping still. By its persistent, quiet influence, the lower, rigid trigram stimulates the upper, weak trigram, which responds to this stimulation cheerfully and joyously. Kên, the lower trigram, is the youngest son; the upper, Tui, is the youngest daughter. Thus the universal mutual attraction between the sexes is represented. In courtship, the masculine principle must seize the initiative and place itself below the feminine principle. Just as the first part of book 1 begins with the hexagrams of heaven and earth, the foundations of all that exists, the second part begins with the hexagrams of courtship and marriage, the foundations of all social relationships.

JudgmentInfluence. Success. Perseverance furthers. To take a maiden to wife brings good fortune. The weak element is above, the strong below; hence their powers attract each other, so that they unite. This brings about success, for all success depends on the effect of mutual attraction. By keeping still within while experiencing joy without, one can prevent the joy from going to excess and hold it within proper bounds. This is the meaning of the added admonition, Perseverance furthers, for it is perseverance that makes the difference between seduction and courtship; in the latter the strong man takes a position inferior to that of the weak girl and shows consideration for her. This attraction between affinities is a general law of nature. Heaven and earth attract each other and thus all creatures come into being. Through such attraction the sage influences men's hearts, and thus the world attains peace. From the attractions they exert we can learn the nature of all beings in heaven and on earth.

ImageA lake on the mountain: The image of influence. Thus the superior man encourages people to approach him By his readiness to receive them. A mountain with a lake on its summit is stimulated by the moisture from the lake. It has this advantage because its summit does not jut out as a peak but is sunken. The image counsels that the mind should be kept humble and free, so that it may remain receptive to good advice. People soon give up counseling a man who thinks that he knows everything better than anyone else.

Moving Line 3The influence shows itself in the thighs. Holds to that which follows it. To continue is humiliating. Every mood of the heart influences us to movement. What the heart desires, the thighs run after without a moment's hesitation; they hold to the heart, which they follow. In the life of man, however, acting on the spur of every caprice is wrong and if continued leads to humiliation. Three considerations suggest themselves here. First, a man should not run precipitately after all the persons whom he would like to influence, but must be able to hold back under certain circumstances. As little should he yield immediately to every whim of those in whose service he stands. Finally, where the moods of his own heart are concerned, he should never ignore the possibility of inhibition, for this is the basis of human freedom.

Moving Line 5The influence shows itself in the back of the neck. No remorse. The back of the neck is the most rigid part of the body. When the influence shows itself there, the will remains firm and the influence does not lead to confusion. Hence remorse does not enter into consideration here. What takes place in the depths of one's being, in the unconscious mind. It is true that if we cannot be influenced ourselves, we cannot influence the outside world.

United States Of America, President

The Challenge of The Voters is That, Over-All, It Is "Our Vote", that counts!

...oooh, it seems that "Our" in "Our Vote" could come down to "Our" Judicial Branch decisions that could put any election results into, one, a position to be revoted on by "Our" Congress, limiting their's to the Judicial Branch approved candidates of "Our's", which would limit the possibility to gain the popular candidate's victory (simply because there are less people in congress than when "our" vote is counted with their's) and therfore to give us a result of a victor of a more narrowed representation to that of the influences in likes with the majority of citizens; "Us"; or two, a New Nationwide Vote for "Us" all, to be "Our President".

In Short: This is NOT Over Yet And "We" "Are Not" "Hearing Yeah Or Neah About This:" At "ALL" From (Our) "Reliable News Sources" ...YET...?

ISN'T THIS IMPORTANT? DOES IT MATTER: WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG OR WHAT WE BELIEVE:

This post related the lack of reporting on the topic of "qualification by citizenship and candidates proven, proofs, and scrutiny of credabilty and public opinion; including whether the qualification is more an honorary custom or a definitive law?...:

When Do They Set Up 24 hours a day at a Court House To "REPORT?" ?; or should ""WE", "really"", ...care.

AGAIN - TAKE A REAL LOOK AT THE FIELD:

Is Just Plain Politics ?
SEE THE CURRENT Population 2,310,000Blogger's Profile - Locations:"United States"

The Challenge of The Voters is That Over-All,...
...::Yet there is much we can do--and must do::...
...It Is "Our Vote"!

The Vote is for "President Of The United States Of America".
That's what this blog is all about!
...
..so what else is there if we dont vote?
...
Then Go Back To The Top and start looking what you can find from The U.S.A. and Any Current President's found change that is "spared" for you!

iS THIS, FINALY THE LAST CASE?
Docket for 08A505
Philip J. Berg, Applicant. v. Barack Obama, et al. ... Application (08A505) referred to the Court. Dec 23 2008, DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009. ... Philip J. Berg, 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12, (610) 825-3134 ...www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a505.htm - 4k
Momentum by the consitancy of the Supreme Court's decision history of cases so far on this issue are largely in favor of "Not Hearing"; whether this is the last case, I Do Not Know.
My wonder is really more about the Supreme Court Establishment's Integrity; i.e.: if one of them says I don't want to hear it, then none of them will say they will either; if any think "we should here this" then one of them should; all this concidering our best interests and not the political structures branched dominion leveraging.
The math makes me wonder if anyone could seek a fair hearing when your asking it to be heard against or "about" one of the three branches, "by" one of the other three branches, of what the third and last branch has seeded; can this formula include a fair chance for anyone who is not part "of a branch" but a remedial thread? Thats why I feel The Constitution is the X-factor here. Isn't it?
Obama himself is a Lawyer and the dynamics of the Presidential job seems to pose a fabric of obstacle by its nature on the President's weeknesses...just like everthing else about the U.S. would be by its competitor's.
Obama could handle his case fine, I figure.
The case, though it seems, is about the people, only in this case the Fifth Amendment appears but does what?
Its my MATH, followed by case dockets.
ITS ABOUT OUR POWERS
The FORMULA is "2 Of 3" Branches are divided or multiplied by "1 of the 2" of 3.
Does The 3rd have any participation?
Or Did They?
The issue is not only will the case be heard as its already been pushed up to this level,
but a Part is an "X" factor; The Constitution.
The "3" are our Branches of Government.
The campaign was for change

Posted by An Olive branch, A Torch aflame, and An Oak branch-leafed; Written binds of EPLU RIB USU NUMat 10:36 AM

WHAT IS THIS THAT IS BEING PASSED ALONG IN SOME TANGENT OF "THE LEAST LIKELY TIMING FOR A DESCISION, PROCESS" For A Supreme Court Ruling that Could Change The Results Of The General Public's VOTE for The New President Elect?
This may seem out in "left field" (simply "way -out there, somewhere")
...
Whats the hold up?
And Who is paying for what?(if any one or anything)

The anti-lobbying rider in the Community Services Administration(CSA) appropriation act is broader than the generally applicablerestrictions on lobbying by executive officers, and prohibits recipientsof CSA grant funds from engaging in any activity designed to influencelegislation pending before Congress, including direct contacts withCongress.

Congress is under no obligation to make funds available to any agencyfor every authorized activity in any given fiscal year, and there shouldbe no presumption that it has done so.

The anti-lobbying statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1913, and the general"publicity and propaganda" rider in the General GovernmentAppropriations Act, have been narrowly construed to prohibit the use offederal funds for "grassroots" lobbying, but not to prohibit a widerange of necessary communications between the Executive on the one hand,and Congress and the general public on the other. The considerationsthat underlie this narrow construction are irrelevant to a prohibitionagainst lobbying by private persons receiving federal grants andcontracts.

Statements made by individual legislators and committees after theenactment of legislation carry little weight in statutoryinterpretation, and are not a sufficient basis for altering a conclusionrequired by the plain meaning of the statutory language.

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OFMANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

On January 19, 1981, the Director of the Community ServicesAdministration (CSA) published in the Federal Register an interpretiveruling by the CSA General Counsel discussing the legal effect of an"anti-lobbying" rider that applies to CSA appropriations. See 46 Fed.Reg. 4919. The history and language of the rider are set out in themargin. /1/ In his ruling, the CSA General Counsel concluded that therider, in its application to CSA grantees, imposes anti-lobbyingrestrictions that are no more stringent than those imposed uponexecutive officers and employees by 18 U.S.C. Section 1913 /2/ and bythe traditional "publicity and propaganda" rider contained in theTreasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act./3/ In reliance upon that legal conclusion, the Director of CSA "waived"certain anti-lobbying restrictions contained in existing CSA grants.Those restrictions were apparently based upon an older, more stringentinterpretation of the rider. You have asked whether, in the opinion ofthis Office, the conclusions reached by the General Counsel were legallycorrect.

I.

The CSA rider imposes two different kinds of restrictions on the useof appropriated funds. The first, set forth in the first sentence of therider, prohibits the use of funds "for publicity and propagandapurposes" or for the preparation or use of any "kit, pamphlet, booklet,publication, radio, television, or film presentation designed to supportor defeat legislation pending before Congress, except in presentation toCongress itself." This language is similar to the language of thetraditional "publicity and propaganda" rider contained in the GeneralAppropriations Act. Unlike the traditional rider, however, the CSA ridercatalogs the kinds of materials and "presentations" for whichappropriated funds may not be expended (kits, pamphlets, etc.), and itauthorizes at least two kinds of expenditures. It expressly permitsexpenditures for the maintenance of "normal and recognizedexecutive-legislative relationships," and it seems to contemplate thatfunds may be expended for the preparation of kits, pamphlets, and other"presentations" that are made directly to Congress itself.

The second restriction is set out in the second sentence of therider. Unlike the first, it applies only to persons who receiveappropriated funds under government grants or contracts. The secondsentence states flatly that "(n)o part of any appropriation contained inthis Act shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant orcontract recipient or agent acting for such recipient to engage in anyactivity designed to influence legislation or appropriations pendingbefore Congress." Because this language forbids the payment of expensesfor "any activity" designed to influence legislation pending beforeCongress, it is far broader than the language of the traditional"publicity and propaganda" rider. Moreover, because it applies expresslyto grantees and contractors and makes no express provision for directcontacts with Congress, it is quite unlike the language of the"anti-lobbying" statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1913.

Posted by An Olive branch, A Torch aflame, and An Oak branch-leafed; Written binds of EPLU RIB USU NUMat 6:29 PM

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

I don't know if any of the cases involving the Supreme Court and this years (2008) election will change or add to the following result I picked up on the Cornell Univesity ""Search "LII" ""
KEYWORDING "PRESIDENT" and clicking onto the results found under "Elections":
election law: an overview
Citizens make choices by voting in elections. Two types of elections exist: general elections and special elections. A general election occurs at a regularly scheduled interval as mandated by law. A special election would be held when something arises that does not arise on a regular basis or routine. For instance, if an elected-office suddenly becomes vacant or a legislature wants to put a referendum before the voters, then they can use a special election.
The electoral process ensures that no leader can take control for an extended amount of time without forcing the elected-official to answer to the will of the people. Nevertheless, government must play an active role in structuring elections and the electoral process. Consequently, individual states carry out the electoral process by following their own state laws. Sections 2 and 4 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution provide states the right to choose their own Representatives and Senators for the United States Congress. The 17th Amendment, however, mandates that the people directly elect the senators, and explicitly bars state legislatures from choosing the state's U.S. Senators.
Presidential Elections: The Electoral College
In Presidential elections, the people of the respective states vote for a Presidential candidate by choosing that candidate's slate of Electors. See Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. After the state's citizens have chosen a slate of Electors, the Electors then formally elect the President and Vice-President by casting their respective votes. When all states' slates of Electors arrive to cast their votes, the aggregate group makes up that which has come to be known as "the Electoral College."
The Office of the Federal Register coordinates the Electoral College. Comprised of 538 Electors, the number of total votes equals the aggregate number of Representatives and Senators that currently make up Congress. The number of Electors in a given state's slate equals its number of U.S. Representatives plus two. The number of Representatives that a state has is determined by considering the state's population in proportion to all other states. Accordingly, each state receives a proportional number of Representatives. The government takes the national census every ten years to determine each state's population. When this occurs, a state potentially can gain or lose Congressmen, which affect the number of Electors, known as electoral votes, that the state will have at the Electoral College.
Of the 50 states, forty-eight have a "winner-take-all" system. Washington D.C. follows the same system. A winner-take-all system assigns that state's entire slate of Electors to the candidate who won the popular vote, regardless of how close the popular vote in the state actually was. Maine and Nebraska use different systems in which they divide their states into districts and assign one electoral vote per district. The Presidential candidate who wins a particular district receives that district's electoral vote. Under this system, Maine and Nebraska could potentially split their electoral votes between candidates, although no Presidential election has ever witnessed either state splitting. No federal law exists that binds Electors to vote for a certain candidate. However, twenty-six states have developed laws for this purpose. After each state has submitted their Electors' votes, the votes are counted and a President and Vice-President are named. Usually, the Electoral College emerges with a winner identical to the U.S. popular vote. However, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the Electoral College winner lost the popular vote.
Congressional Elections
States may individually decide how to carry out their elections for Representatives, Senators and electors. Each state differs in structure, with most assigning administrative offices the task of running elections. States also differ on rules concerning when, where and how citizens may vote (see Congressional Districts). While the people of the respective states have always directly elected Representatives, most individual state legislatures chose the U.S. Senators that would represent that state until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. A product of the Progressive Era's call for more democracy, the 17th Amendment gave citizens more influence over the federal government.
Changes in Election Law
While Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are rare, seven of the twenty-seven Amendments that have passed deal with altering the process of electing the United States Federal Government. The 12th Amendment clarifies that each Elector of the Electoral College must cast two votes - one for President and one for Vice President. The 15th Amendment disallows abridging the right to vote on the basis of race, and the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote. The 17th Amendment gives the people the right to directly elect their U.S. Senators. The 23rd Amendment granted electoral votes to Washington D.C. The 24th Amendment eliminated Poll Taxes, and the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18.
Recently-passed federal statutes have created a means for military personnel and overseas citizens to vote and have aided the elderly and disabled citizens' ability to vote. In 1993 Congress passed the "motor voter" law, which enables citizens to register to vote when they apply for driver's licenses.
Some states have recently begun adopting voter identification laws as well in an effort to combat voter fraud. These laws require voters to present identification when they arrive at the polling location to vote. Many felt that Indiana had the most stringent requirement because it required voters to present photo identification. Because some felt that the statute disproportionately burdened the elderly and the minorities, the statute was challenged and went before the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion (07-21). The Supreme Court, however, upheld the law.
Campaign Reform
In 1971 Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to closely regulate federal elections. The law increased necessary disclosure of federal campaign contributions and created the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to administer federal elections. In 1979 the FEC permitted political parties to spend unlimited amounts of hard money on certain activities, and soft money went unregulated by the FEC. Hard money refers to funding donated directly to a campaign or political party, whereas soft money refers to funding contributed to organizations, often known as 527s, that advocate issues and indirectly advocate a candidate, without specifically advocating for the election or defeat of a particular candidate.
Following the law's passage, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the law's constitutionality in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), a landmark decision concerning the interplay between campaign regulations and First Amendment rights. In Buckley the Supreme Court ruled that the FEC could regulate and limit donations to campaigns but could not cap the amount of money that a political campaign could spend because doing so violates the First Amendment. Buckley also held that the FEC could not constitutionally regulate soft money.
Over the next three decades, concerns with the increasing costs of conducting a political campaign did not subside, and the popularity of soft money drove much of this concern. In accordance with this concern, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold (Bipartisan Campaign Reform) Act of 2002 (BCRA). The BCRA amended the FECA to add a provision, which disallowed federal candidates from using corporate and union funding to launch television ads on satellite or cable within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. A second amendment prohibited candidates and political parties at both the national and state levels from spending soft money on federal elections.
Immediately after the President signed the law, members of the U.S. Congress challenged the law's constitutionality before the U.S. Supreme Court. In McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), the Court upheld the Act's key provisions.
However, with two new justices on the bench in 2006, the Supreme Court reengaged the campaign finance debate, striking down a Vermont law because the low campaign expenditure ceiling it implemented was disproportionate to the goal it advanced. See Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006).
Then, in 2007 the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. 551 U.S. ___. As it applied to Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court struck down the portion of the BCRA that prohibited organizations from running issue ads within a certain number of days of the election because the provision restricted political speech and therefore violated the First Amendment rights of the organization.
The Supreme Court also expounded on the BCRA's provision known as "the Millionaire's Amendment" in the 2008 case of Davis v. FEC (07-320). The Millionaire's Amendment only affected candidates who had spent in excess of $350,000 in personal funds on their own campaign. The BCRA permitted the opponents of these candidates to receive triple the amount of personal contributions typically allowed and permitted the opponents to accept coordinated party contributions without limit, but the BCRA held self-financing candidates to the normal limit. Finding that the provision burdened free speech and associational rights, the Supreme Court struck down the provision as well. The combination of Davis and Wisconsin Right to Life leaves the BCRA in serious limbo.
For more information, see LII's Backgrounder on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Cases.
Categories:
wexconstitutional lawgovernmental organization power and procedureoverview

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

LXXVIII Miss Arendt's only criticism of the American founding fathers is that ... ing a civil society, and the term "appeal to heaven," which does appear, ... links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195(196312)78%3A4%3C620%3AOR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 - Similar pagesJSTOR: America's Political Heritage: Revolution and Free ...
4~ The artless "Appeal to Heaven" posed a challenge for our Constitution mak- a9 ..... to endure and to be adapted to the various crises in human affairs. ... links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195(197622)91%3A2%3C193%3AAPHRAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P - Similar pages

WHO NOW IS 2008 campaign's BEST FOR THE ROLE
OF THE JOB OF
THE PRESIDENT
OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2008 Presidential Candidates in All Parties

All "Announced" candidates have formed or announced a Presidential exploratory or campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission or filed a statement of candidacy. "Potential" candidates have publicly expressed an interest in a Presidential campaign or their interest has been suggested by the media.

Blogger News

This morning we posted an update about Blogspot to Google’s Security Blog https://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2015/09/https-support-coming-to-blogspot.html. Since 2008, we've worked to encrypt the connections between our users and Google servers. Over the years we've announced that Search, Gmail, Drive, and many other products have encrypted connections by default, and most recently, we'...

There is no single simple policy which meets this challenge.
Experience has taught us that-
- no one nation has the power or the wisdom to solve all the problems of the world or manage its revolutionary tides-
-that extending our commitments does not always increase our security-
-that any initiative carries with it the risk of a temporary defeat-
-that no free people can be kept free without will and energy of their own-
-that nuclear weapons cannot prevent subversion-
-and that no two nations or situations are exactly alike.